Negligent Auditor Claims

We provide expert legal advice on professional negligence claims against all auditors. When financial information is inaccurately recorded or erroneous it can cause serious legal ramifications for auditors.

Auditors have a duty to look into the substantial accuracy of any given account, to ensure they correctly represent the state of the company’s affairs. This duty only requires the auditor to have been reasonably careful in their role.

In the instance where a claim of fraud is established in a company, the auditor will not automatically be held to have been negligent in failing to detect the fraud. Therefore, to establish whether an auditor has been negligent, it is necessary to prove that a reasonably competent auditor exercising normal skill and care would have identified the fraud.

Common examples of successful claims against auditors

In recent years it has become apparent that some of the more successful cases against negligent auditors have been where there has been a misunderstanding as to the degree of responsibility which the auditor was to assume in giving advice. Therefore, it is essential that you distinguish your claim between:

a) negligence which has been carried out contrary to agreed terms; or

b) a dispute that has arisen due to a misunderstanding regarding assumed duties of the auditor.

What happens if I do not have a written agreement with my auditor?

If there is no express contractual written agreement between you and your auditor, then the standard of work is implied by section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, where it states:

‘in a contract for the supply of a service where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill’.

How can I prove that my auditor has been negligent?

In order to sue an auditor for negligence, a claimant must establish three essential elements to the civil standard of proof (on a balance of probabilities, i.e. it must be proved by the claimant that the financial adviser’s breach of duty caused the claimant to suffer loss).

1.Demonstrate that the auditor owed you a duty of care: the boundary lines between when a tortious duty of care is owed or not owed is subject to tests that are being continuously evolved by the courts. A duty of care exists where the auditor can be shown to have objectively assumed responsibility.

2. Establish that the auditor has breached the duty of care owed to you: proving breach will obviously vary depending on the individual circumstances of the case. A claimant needs to demonstrate that the breach shows that the auditor fell below the standards of a reasonably competent adviser in that speciality.

3. Prove that the auditor’s breach caused loss to you: you must prove both factual and legal causation. The test for factual causation is that “but for” the auditor’s breach you would not have suffered loss. Legal causation must also be proved i.e. the loss must be reasonably foreseeable at the time when the relevant duty was breached.

What is the time limit for commencing a claim against my auditor?

Time limits and limitation periods are essential to adhere to in litigation. Missing a limitation period is fatal to the chances of success of any claim and will leave a claim statute barred.

When it comes to ascertaining the limitation date for a particular claim, there are a number of factors to consider. In simple terms, the limitation period is six years from the accrual of the cause of action (section 2, Limitation Act 1980). However, if the six year time limit has passed but you have only just discovered the effect of any latent damage, then the limitation period may be extended to three years from the date of knowledge (section 14A, Limitation Act 1980).

If you have a complaint against an auditor, then our advice is that you take independent legal advice as soon as possible.

Book an Initial Consultation with our Professional Negligence Lawyers

Do you have a claim against a professional? If you want expert legal advice, do not delay in instructing us so we can assess the legal merit of your case.

We can often take on such claims on a no win no fee basis (such as a Conditional Fee Arrangement) once we have discussed the claim with you and then assessed and advised you on the merits of the proposed professional negligence action.

Our expert legal team of leading Professional Negligence Solicitors & Barristers can provide urgent help, advice or representation to you. Just call our Professional Negligence Lawyers on 02071830529 or email us now.

Instruct Specialist Professional Negligence Solicitors

We are a specialist City of London law firm made up of Solicitors & Barristers operating from the only law firm based in the Middle Temple Inn of Court adjacent to the Royal Courts of Justice. Our team have expertise in advising on claims for compensation against professionals that have fallen below the standard expected, which causes clients financial or personal loss. We are experienced in bringing successful claims against negligent solicitors, barristers, financial advisers, surveyors, auditors, architects, tax advisers and IFAs.

costs solicitor negligence estimates litigation

Unrealistic Cost Estimates Leads to Professional Negligence Claim

The key takeaway from this case is offering realistic, transparent, and accurate cost estimates is both a professional duty and a vital element in preserving trust and integrity in the legal realm. Neglecting this obligation can lead to costly disputes, as demonstrated in the Amanda Kenton v Slee Blackwell LLP case, impacting both the law firm and its clients.
Read More
Professional Negligence Lawyers in London

Professional Negligence in Legal Services: Lessons from King v DWF LLP

The case of King v DWF examines allegations of professional negligence and dishonesty. Despite claimants accusing their legal advisors of mismanagement during a 2017 trial, the court found these claims unmerited, highlighting the judicial resistance to recognising negligence in situations involving complex professional judgment. This case underscores the difficulty of proving negligence in scenarios reliant on subjective legal decisions, establishing high standards for such accusations in professional contexts.
Read More
Solicitors' Duty of Care

Solicitors’ Duty of Care to Third Parties

This article explores the Solicitors’ Duty of Cares to Third Parties, particularly focusing on the recent Court of Appeal ruling in Ashraf v Lester Dominic Solicitors. While solicitors primarily owe duties to their clients, the case raised the question of whether they also bear responsibilities towards non-clients. The Court hinted at the possibility that solicitors, in certain circumstances, may owe a duty of care to third parties, such as completion of paperwork for property transactions. The case highlights the evolving landscape of solicitors’ obligations. If you’re considering a claim or need legal advice, our expert team of Professional Negligence Solicitors & Barristers is here to assist you.
Read More
Professional Negligence Claims / Immigration Law / LEXLAW

Professional Negligence Claims against Immigration Lawyers

Professional negligence claims against immigration advisors result from perceived failures in the advisors’ competence and care, causing harm or financial losses to clients. Negligence examples include incorrect applications, missed deadlines, and providing incorrect advice. Clients must prove breach of duty and harm to pursue claims. Resolution involves consultations with legal professionals, evidence collection, and negotiation, mediation, or litigation to seek compensation and redress clients’ grievances.
Read More
professional negligence legal claim, property valuation, Valuation Case

Surveyor Negligence in Cedar House Valuation Case

Hope Capital engaged Alexander Reece Thomson LLP to value Cedar House, which was intended as security for a loan. Hope claimed the valuation was negligent and sought damages. The court ruled the valuation was outside an acceptable range, but factors beyond negligence affected the property’s value. The judge ultimately found that Hope suffered no actionable loss due to the negligence, leading to the claim’s dismissal. This case underscores the need for a clear link between professional negligence and financial loss in claims, highlighting the importance of property valuation and professional negligence laws in the UK.
Read More
Professional Negligence / Amathus / Contractual Disclaimer / Negligence cClaim

Auditor’s Disclaimer Does Not Work: Amathus Drinks v EAGK LLP

The Amathus Drinks case, [2023] EWHC 2312 (Ch), has unveiled significant insights into professional negligence claims and contractual disclaimers. In this case, buyers accused accountants of negligence in detecting fraud during a company sale. The decision underscores the importance of evaluating disclaimers within the unique context of each case.
Read More
Call Now search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close